RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  S/C/M/104 
12 April 2011 
 (11-1817) 
Council for Trade in Services   
  
 
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 9 MARCH 2011 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
  
1. The Council for Trade in Services held a mee ting dedicated to the review of Article II 
Exemptions (MFN) on 9 March 2011.  The me eting was chaired by Ambassador Erwidodo 
(Indonesia).  The agenda for the meeting was contained in document WTO/AIR/
3707 . 
2. The Chairman  suggested that the agenda be adopted as circulated.  
3. The Council so agreed . 
A. REVIEW OF THE MFN  EXEMPTIONS LISTED  
4. The Chairman  recalled that, as a basis for the review, the Secretariat had produced three 
background documents:  two up dated compilations, one organised by sector (in document 
JOB/SERV/29), and one organised by Member (in document JOB/SERV/30), and a document providing updated statistical information on the number of MFN exemptions listed (in document 
JOB/SERV/31).  At the dedicated meeting held in  November 2010, the Council had examined all 
exemptions contained in the Secretariat compila tion in documents JOB/SERV/29 up to and including 
"distribution services".   
5. At the current meeting, the Council was to examine the remaining exemptions in the 
Secretariat compilation, i.e. those listed for:  edu cational services; financial services;  health-related 
and social services;  tourism and travel-related services;  recreational, cultural and sporting services;  and transport services.  Delegations would also have  the possibility of reverting to the exemptions 
addressed in November 2010 for any further comments they might have.  
6. A number of delegations had submitted writte n questions for the purpose of the review 
meeting, namely Switzerland (in document S/C/W/ 330), Hong Kong, China (S/C/W/331) and Norway 
(S/C/W/336).  The Chairman also indicated that a number of the questions that had been submitted for 
the first dedicated meeting by China (in documen t S/C/W/321), and by Hong Kong, China and Japan 
(S/C/W/322), were also relevant for that second dedicated meeting. 
7. He recalled that, in order to have an efficient discussion, at the previous dedicated meeting the 
Council had addressed all the sectors on the agenda  together, for delegations which had received 
questions to respond.  He proposed that Members a dopt a similar approach at the current meeting. 
8. It was so agreed
. 
9. The Chairman  encouraged delegations who had received  questions to structure their responses 
as much as possible on the basis of the questions ad dressed to them.  Discussions would be conducted 
                                                      
 1  This document has been prepared  under the Secretariat's own responsibility and without prejudice to 
the positions of Members and to their rights and obligations under the WTO. S/C/M/104 
Page 2  
 
in formal mode, with the possibility of switching to informal mode if Members so desired.  He then 
opened the floor for delegations wishing to  introduce their submissions or make interventions of a 
general nature concerning the review .  
10. The representative of Switzerland
 stated that the objective of the review was to clarify the 
reasons underlying the listing of an exemption a nd the reasons that justified maintaining the 
exemption in question.  He explained that, in docu ment S/C/W/330, his delegation had raised a series 
of questions focused on financial services, a sector  where many MFN exemptions had been listed.  
Many of those exemptions seemed difficult to reconcile with the spirit of the GATS.   
11. Document S/C/W/330 contained two questions of a general nature.  The first invited those 
Members with exemptions in the financial service s area to confirm that their MFN-inconsistent 
measures had a legal basis, to explicitly indicat e what that basis was and to provide detailed 
information about the relevant provisions.  Th e second question sought an  explanation of the 
circumstances that justified, or continued to  justify, discrimination between countries.   
12. Switzerland's communication also raised specific questions, which further elaborated on the 
more general queries.  They sought to evaluate cr itically the exemptions listed in financial services 
and the way they were applied, while at the sa me time assessing whether there was a possibility of 
eliminating or reducing them.  His delegation hoped to have  constructive answers to its questions, in 
particular with regard to the issue of reciprocity,  which, in Switzerland's view, could hardly meet the 
conditions justifying exemptions to the MFN clause.  
13. The representative of Hong Kong, China  stressed the importance his delegation attached to 
the review, and noted that the reduction of MFN exemptions was within the DDA mandate.  He 
indicated that, while the review was not part of  the DDA, the process could provide Members with a 
better understanding of the rationale and utilisation of the exemptions listed.  Such information could 
enlighten Members in negotiations aimed at eliminating and reducing those exemptions.   
14. He then drew delegations' attention to the communication his delegation had submitted, in 
document S/C/W/331, which sought information about exemptions listed mostly for financial services 
and maritime transport services.  Hong Kong, Ch ina's intentions with the communication mirrored 
those mentioned by Switzerland.   
15. With regard to financial services, the questi ons raised by his delegation addressed follow-up 
aspects that had been already raised in previous re views.  They were fact-finding questions, aimed at 
better understanding the rationale behind the exemp tions listed and the reasons why these had to be 
maintained.  At the same time, his delegation also had a more systemic concern, as the largest number 
of reciprocity-based exemptions had been listed in the financial services sector.  Such MFN 
exemptions seemed to be motivated by defensive, retaliatory reasons, to address instances in which 
favourable treatment was not granted.  That logi c went against the fundamental philosophy of the 
MFN principle, and reciprocity-based exemptions we re a reason for concern, particularly in the 
financial services sector.  In Hong Kong, China's view, such exemptions were good candidates for 
elimination in the course of the DDA negotiati ons.  Their removal would ensure mutual and 
multilateral market access, and avoid locki ng in a vicious cycle of retaliation.   
16. As concerned maritime transport services, the sector presented the highest number of 
exemptions after the audio-visual services sector.  The rationale for their existence was very often 
unclear.  His delegation had some sympathy for th ose Members that had indicated that they were 
reviewing their maritime transport exemptions.  Di sappointingly, however, in spite of those reviews, 
there was little indication that those exemptions woul d be reduced or eliminated.  It would therefore 
be beneficial to have an update fro m the relevant Members on the state of play of their reviews.  Hong 
Kong, China's communication also included two specif ic questions, one for Brazil and another for the  S/C/M/104 
 Page 3 
 
 
Philippines.  The two questions had been raised  in the previous MFN review, but no concrete 
response had been provided yet. 
17. Hong Kong, China also had some follow-up comments on the exemptions reviewed in 
November 2010.  In particular, no information had been provided on the exemption listed by Vietnam 
in the audio-visual sector and on the one inscribed  by Indonesia on construction and related services.  
Hong Kong, China would appreciate receiving some answers at the current meeting. 
18. His delegation had also posed a more systemic  question to the EU, asking how it planned to 
rationalise the exemptions that had been listed by the new EU Member States.  Hong Kong, China had 
not received any concrete responses and was se eking further insights in that regard. 
19. The representative of Norway  drew Members' attention to document S/C/W/336, which 
contained the questions her delega tion had raised regarding exempti ons listed in maritime transport 
services.  The questions were intended to obtain clarification from the Members concerned on whether the conditions that had created the need fo r those exemptions still prevailed.  Her delegation 
found the questions posed by Hong Kong, China on the maritime sector also ve ry valuable and looked 
forward to hearing Members' responses.  She hoped to receive answers to her delegation's questions 
either at that meeting or in writing as soon as possible after the meeting. 
20. The representative of Japan
 indicated that, although her delegation had not  submitted new 
questions for that meeting, Japan was very interest ed in the issues raised by Switzerland; Hong Kong, 
China and Norway and looked forward to hearing Me mbers' answers.  By way of general comment, 
she stressed that ambiguous information about ex emptions listed lessened the legal stability of the 
GATS because it allowed for a wide margin of interpre tation of the measure that was the object of the 
exemption.  Therefore, Japan strongly believed that  the number of exemptions should be minimized.   
21. It was also essential to understand which exemp tions were truly needed.  In her delegation's 
view, there were two such types of exemptions:  those that, grounded on existing measures, ensured 
conformity with bilateral agreemen ts or domestic laws; and those that were based on the possibility of 
introducing future measures.  Members who maintain ed of either type exemptions should provide 
detailed and thorough explanations of their underlyi ng rationale.  More concretely, Japan wished to 
obtain information on the agreements and laws behi nd the first type of exemptions, and the scenarios 
that would require maintaining the second type.  Such information would minimize the margin of 
interpretation for those MFN exemptions.   
22. She stressed that the MFN obligation was the mo st important principle of the GATS and that 
exemptions had to be the exception.  In this re gard, Japan hoped that all Members concerned would 
provide the Council with the information necess ary to assess the need for maintaining their 
exemptions.   
23. By way of general introductory comments, the representative of the European Union  said that 
she would respond to questions with regard to exempt ions that were listed in  the EU-12 exemption list 
of 1995, as well as questions that concerned the exem ptions listed by the 15 countries that acceded to 
the EU between 1995 and 2007.  As stated at the prev ious dedicated meeting, the EU would limit its 
replies to issues that fell within the scope of th e review as defined in the relevant GATS Annex.  
Therefore systemic issues, including possible or even tual consolidation of the exemptions of the EU-
27 Member States, were not considered appropriate to  be discussed in the framework of the review.   
24. The Chairman  opened the floor on the MFN exemptions listed for educational services; 
financial services; health-related and social services; tourism and travel-related services; 
recreational, cultural and sporting services; and transport services . S/C/M/104 
Page 4  
 
25. Starting with the general questions on the MFN exemptions listed in financial services raised 
by Switzerland in document S/C/W/330,  the representative of the United States
 replied that the US 
exemptions were generally a result of US policies designed to promote liberal market access.  These 
fell into two broad categories:  reciprocity provisi ons found in Federal or St ate laws, and preferential 
treatment resulting from international agreements on tr ade, investment, or taxation.  The United States 
did not regard those exemptions as intrusive because  of their liberalization objectives.  For example, 
reciprocity requirements would be rendered obs olete as WTO Members achieved progressive 
liberalization that brought them to the level of openness maintained by the United States.  At that 
juncture, however, the United States did not see suffi cient progress to justify the withdrawal of its 
MFN exemptions.   
26. The need for the US exemption for insurance, which allowed for differential treatment if a 
Member reduced the permitted level of foreign equity, remained as current commitments and offers 
for insurance did not provide sufficient coverage.  In banking and other financial services, the State-
level measures concerned were desi gned to dissuade other countries, many of which had limited or no 
market access commitments in the sector, from discriminating against institutions of particular US 
States.  The possibility of such discrimination c ontinued to exist and so did the need for the 
exemption.   
27. Turning to specific questions, Switzerland had ask ed whether the United States had made use 
of its MFN exemption on insurance services since th e previous review.  The representative indicated 
that his delegation was not aware of any use of the MFN exemption since that review. 
28. Concerning banking and other financial servi ces (excluding insurance), Switzerland had 
asked whether the United States or a specific US St ate had taken any measure under the relevant MFN 
exemptions.  The representative replied that his delegation did not know of any instances of 
application of those measures by the rele vant States since the previous review. 
29. In reply to question Q2 by Hong Kong, China (in document S/C/W/331) on whether the 
exemption concerning the size of  foreign banks operated as a de facto  quota or whether it was related 
to reciprocity, the representative stated the li mitation referred to by Hong Kong, China was 
incorrectly specified.  For a branch license in Okla homa, a foreign bank had to have at least US$10 
million in capital or be one of the five largest banks in  its home country.  In Florida, an agency license 
was available to a foreign bank with at least US$25 million in capital or if it was one of five largest 
banks in its home country.  Howeve r, a foreign bank wishing to branch into the US market also had 
the option of setting up a federal branch in those States that allowed branches. 
30. The representative of India  indicated that his delegation had received a question from Hong 
Kong, China (Q5 in document S/C/W/331).  He explai ned that India had listed two exemptions in the 
maritime transport sector.  The first one related to  cargo sharing and was based on certain bilateral 
agreements that were still in force.  Therefore,  the conditions that had created the need for the 
exemption still prevailed.  The second exemption re lated to cargo reservation.  His delegation had 
been reviewing the need for the continuation of that  exemption, and had indicated the possibility of its 
removal in India's revised conditional offer.  Ho wever, the revised offer was conditional on other 
Members making substantive and satisfactory offers  in sectors and modes of supply where India had 
indicated its interests.  Therefore, the removal of that exemption was subject to the result of the DDA 
negotiations.  
31. The representative of China  said that his delegation had received a question from Norway (in 
document S/C/W/336) with regard to China's MFN exemption listed in maritime transport.  In 
response, he indicated that, in accordance with Ch ina's bilateral agreements with many other WTO 
Members, China allowed the establishment of wholly  foreign-owned shipping agencies in China to 
provide services for ships owned or operated by carriers of the home country.  Up to that moment, companies from Denmark; Singapore; Korea; the United States; Norway; Hong Kong, China; Japan;  S/C/M/104 
 Page 5 
 
 
Germany; France; Israel; Chile; Italy; Russia; Be lgium; Malaysia; Switzerland and the Netherlands 
had established such shipping companies in China.  With regard to cargo-sharing, there were still 
provisions in China's bilateral agreements with Arge ntina, Brazil, Thailand and Zaire.  Therefore, the 
conditions creating the need for the relevant MFN ex emptions still existed.  The representative went 
on to emphasize that China had listed very few MFN exemptions, and more specifically only the two 
relating to maritime transport services.  China encouraged Members who maintained numerous MFN 
exemptions to eliminate them once the conditions creating the need to main tain them no longer 
existed.   
32. In reply to the question by Hong Kong, China on the exemption on maritime transport 
services, the representative of Brazil  said that, while he was not in a position to provide an exact 
figure for the participation of Brazilian companies in ocean cargo shipping, the share was similar to 
the one mentioned at the previous review and, thus, still very low.  Hence, the need for the relevant 
exemption was still justified. 
33. With regard to MFN exemptions in financia l services, the representative of the European 
Union  indicated that her delegation had received questions from Switzerland and Hong Kong, China 
on the reciprocity-based exemptions listed by Au stria, the Slovak Republic and Hungary.  The 
representative indicated that the rationale behind the reciprocity requirement was the same, in spite of 
the content of the three exemptions being different.  In all three cases, the conditions that had justified 
the exemptions still prevailed, since the three Stat es wished to maintain th e possibility of providing 
more favourable treatment to financial service supp liers of countries that were open to their own 
suppliers.  The representative acknowledged that all three countries applied open market access 
policies in practice, but the exemptions were necessary  since they reflected a general interest for other 
countries to be equally open.   
34. In maritime transport services, the EU had received a question from Hong Kong, China with 
regard to an exemption listed for rental and l easing services without operator relating to ships and 
rental of vessels with crew.  She indicated that  the exemption concerned Germany only because it was 
originally filed as a measure against possible reci procity-related problems for German ship-owners in 
third countries.  The exemption took into account the limited commitments in the sector by WTO 
Members.  With regard to implementing legislation for the exemption, the right to lease in Germany 
remained subject to possible nationality requirements with respect to the registration of ships and the 
right to fly the flag.  Hence, the EU considered th at it was still necessary to maintain the exemption.   
35. On inland waterway transport, the EU ha d received a follow-up question from Hong Kong, 
China that referred to an explanation given by th e EU during the first review held in 2000.  The 
representative indicated that the conditions that ha d created the need for the exemptions were not 
related to the harmonisation of the EU internal inla nd waterway transport.  As had been previously 
indicated, there were numerous bilateral and pluril ateral agreements in force which regulated the 
access to the inland waterways transport market, pa rticularly for the Danube-Rhine link.  These 
agreements had not been signed exclusively am ongst EU Member States, and therefore it was 
important to retain the exemptions concerned as long as those agreements remained in force. 
36. Concerning the question by Hong Kong, China on the identical exemptions listed by Bulgaria, 
the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic on rail tr ansport services for pass engers and freight, the 
representative indicated that the exemptions had not or iginally been listed solely to cover agreements 
amongst countries that had now become EU Member St ates.  Notably, the exemptions were meant to 
cover bilateral agreements on rail tran sport with Ukraine.  In that sense, harmonization within the EU 
was irrelevant and the exemptions were still needed. 
37. In reply to the question raised by Switzerla nd on an exemption on insurance intermediation 
services, the representative of Canada  said that his delegation had started consultations with the S/C/M/104 
Page 6  
 
regulator at the Department of Finance but these discussions had not been completed and that his delegation would endeavour to provide a response as soon as possible. 
38. The representative of Indonesia
 replied to the question raised by Switzerland by saying that 
Indonesia's indication in its offer that it would remove the exemption concerned was subject to 
conditionality.  The same answer applied to the qu estion raised by Hong Kong, China and Japan with 
regard to the exemption on construc tion and related engineering services. 
39. In response to the question by Norway on th e maritime transport services exemption, the 
representative of Cuba  said that Cuba had signed bilateral inter-governmental maritime transport 
agreements with Argentina, Germany, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Ghana, Guatemala, Jamaica, Namibia, 
Romania, Russia, Tunisia, Ukraine, and Viet nam.  These agreements encompassed measures to 
facilitate maritime transport between the parties con cerned, definitions of maritime transport services 
necessary to promote trade, as well  as measures to facilitate the m ovement of crews, co-operation and 
technical assistance in the maritime and port areas.  Pursuant to these treaties, Cuba granted certain 
privileges to ships of shipping companies of those countries with which agreements had been signed.  
Nonetheless, these shipping companies were negativ ely affected by the economic embargo imposed 
by the United States on Cuba.  The embargo meant that any ship that had come to Cuban ports could 
only reach US ports after 180 days had passed.  This measure implied that, after coming to Cuba, vessels could not load cargo destined for the United States, which was the biggest and closest market, 
and in many instances had to travel much longer distances.  This increased the cost of the 
transportation of freight to Cuba.  The bilatera l agreements facilitated trade between the parties 
concerned, granted benefits that did not create barr iers for third-party suppliers, and did not entail 
measures granting treatment less favourable than that stipulated in Cuba's commitments.  The reasons 
that had motivated the need for the exemption conti nued to exist, as the bilateral maritime transport 
agreements were still in force and there was a shared interest on the part of the parties concerned to 
maintain the underlying level of commitmen ts and bilateral rela tions unchanged.   
40. In response to Switzerland's question, the representative of Singapore
 indicated that 
Singapore had listed two MFN exemptions on financia l services, the first relating to the currency 
inter-changeability agreement between Singapore an d Brunei Darussalam and the second relating to 
the ASEAN Reinsurance Corporation.  With rega rd to the currency inter-changeability agreement 
between Singapore and Brunei Darussalam, the repr esentative explained that the agreement, which 
had been entered into in 1967, had arisen from sp ecial historical and economic ties between Singapore 
and Brunei Darussalam.  The agreement remained in force and would be maintained until either 
Brunei or Singapore terminated it.  As concerne d the exemption relating to the ASEAN Reinsurance 
Corporation, Singapore was prepared to consider removing the MFN exemption in the context of the 
DDA negotiations and had indicated so in its revised offer of 2005.   
41. In reply to Hong Kong, China's question, the representative noted that Singapore had an MFN 
exemption in maritime transport services relating to  certain maritime auxiliary services such as 
storage, warehousing, freight forwarding, inland trucking, container station and depot services.  
Singapore considered that MFN exemption necessar y, in the light of unsatisfactory access for 
Singaporean companies in those sectors in some countries. 
42. The representative of Thailand  said that, with regard to the questions on his country's 
exemption relating to international freight mariti me transport, the measure was captured under the 
Treaty of Amity and Economic Relations between Th ailand and the United States signed in 1966.  As 
the Treaty remained in force, the conditions that had given rise to the exemption still prevailed.   
43. On the question relating to Thailand’s ex emptions on VAT collection on the selling and 
marketing on maritime transport services, as previous ly pointed out, WTO Members had, in practice, 
been able to enjoy a zero VAT rate on the selling and marketing of maritime transport services in Thailand, but at that time, the relevant Thai laws had yet to be modified to reflect the practice.   S/C/M/104 
 Page 7 
 
 
However, since the previous review, the relevant pr ovisions had been modified accordingly.  As such, 
the measure was no longer inconsistent with Article II of the GATS.   
44. Concerning the exemption on road transport ser vices, Thailand had held regular discussions 
and reviews with the relevant agencies on the ma tter.  Following those reviews, the agencies 
concerned had insisted that there was a need to maintain the exemption to facilitate the efficient 
functioning and security of road transport services  across Thailand's borders and, therefore, the 
conditions giving rise to the exemption still prevailed.   
45. The representative of Chinese Taipei  said that, while his delegation had not received nor 
posed any specific questions in the course of the re view, it attached great importance to safeguarding 
the MFN principle.  He recalled that Annex C of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration contained a 
mandate to remove or substantially reduce MFN ex emptions, and clarify any remaining ones.  He 
encouraged the Members concerned to take the opportunity of the DDA negotiations to review 
whether there was a genuine need to maintain their exemptions.  He was encouraged by the fact that 
some delegations had signalled the possibility of re moving some of their exemptions.  At the same 
time, however, he did not agree that negotiations should be a precondition to do so, as the review was 
mandated by the relevant GATS Annex.  If the cond itions for maintaining an exemption no longer 
prevailed, the exemption should be removed. 
46. The Chairman  opened the floor for any delegation wishing to revert to the MFN exemptions 
addressed in November 2010, i.e. those pertaining to:  all sectors;  business services;  
communication services;  construction and rel ated engineering services;  and distribution 
services . 
47. No interventions  were made. 
48. The representative of Switzerland  thanked all Members which had answered his delegation's 
questions.  He said that Indonesia and Singapore had provided clear replie s, and he was looking 
forward to Canada's response.  All other answer s seemed a bit evasive, however, and his delegation 
was not convinced that the conditions that had created the need for the exemptions concerned 
prevailed.  It was difficult to see how reciproc ity-based criteria could justify the need for MFN 
exemptions.  Along similar lines, it was unclear how, 15 years after they had first been listed, those 
exemptions were still needed and if they were th e appropriate instrument to achieve their stated 
purpose. 
49. The representative of Hong Kong, China  thanked all Members for their participation in the 
review.  He reiterated that MFN was a cardinal principle of the WTO and that exemptions were 
undesirable.  Allowing exemptions to persist for such  a long period of time was contrary to the spirit 
of the MFN obligation.  At the same time, he was grateful to those Members which had provided 
substantive information and updates on their exem ptions.  Information wa s crucial in enhancing 
Members' understanding on the scope of and the reasons for the exemptions listed.   
50. He was also pleased that some Members had indi cated that they were ready to remove some 
of their exemptions.  Nonetheless, he echoed the statement made by Chinese Taipei that, in the 
context of the review, MFN exemptions should be eliminated insofar as the original conditions 
creating their need no longer existed.  Therefore,  it was puzzling to hear that, while a number of 
Members were prepared to eliminate some of thei r exemptions, they were waiting until the conclusion 
of the DDA to do so.  He noted that that approach was not constructive.   
51. Moreover, he registered his delegation's disappointment that, for a large number of 
exemptions, Members had simply indicated that "the conditions creating the need for the exemptions 
still prevailed", without giving any supportive info rmation.  With regard to reciprocity-based 
exemptions, while his delegation appr eciated the concern that some other Members' markets were still S/C/M/104 
Page 8  
 
protected and that those exemptions were maintained to encourage libera lisation, they were in fact an 
obstacle to multilateral liberalisation.  There were al so certain exemptions which had been listed for 
an indefinite timeframe, and in that regard th e representative recalled his delegation's position on 
paragraph 6 of the Annex on Article  II Exemptions.  Finally, he urged all Members concerned to 
seriously consider eliminating their exemptions unilaterally or through mu ltilateral negotiations as a 
matter of priority.  In addition, he emphasised that in the spirit of the review, all exemptions for which 
the original conditions no longe r existed should be removed. 
52. The representative of Norway
 thanked those Members which had answered her delegation's 
questions.  She encouraged the delegations which ha d not replied to submit their responses in writing 
after the meeting.   
53. The Chairman  said that, while the Council had conc luded its examination of all MFN 
exemptions listed, he would provide an opportunity  for delegations to make  any additional comments 
regarding the exemptions pertaining to the sectors discussed at that meeting. 
B. DETERMINATION  OF THE  DATE  OF ANY  FURTHER  REVIEW 
54. The Chairman  recalled that paragraph 4(b) of the Annex on Article II Exemptions mandated 
the Council for Trade in Services, in the review, to  determine "the date of any further review" and 
invited delegations' comments in that regard.  
55. The representative of the European Union  said that her delegation was not ready to commit to 
a specific date for the following review, so suggested  that the Council postpone discussion of the issue 
until its next meeting. 
56. The representative of Japan  said that the review was an important exercise which was based 
on a GATS mandate.  Her delegation be lieved that it could lead to s ubstantial reduction of the number 
of MFN exemptions.  At the same time, Japan was concerned that the way that the current review 
meeting was organized had not been sufficiently e ffective.  She suggested that, for next review 
meeting, Members could organize the discussion differe ntly.  In particular, detailed information about 
the conditions creating the need to maintain each exemption could be provide d before the meeting, 
and Members who had received questions s hould provide their answers in writing. 
57. The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that not much had changed in terms of the 
numbers of exemptions listed between the first and the current, third review.  Therefore, the 
conditions that had created the need for the review s till prevailed.  Accordingly, in line with paragraph 
3 of the relevant Annex and previous practice, he suggested that the following review be held no later 
than five years from the current review. 
58. The Chairman  suggested that the Council take note of the statements made and that Members 
continue their deliberations relate d to the review under an item on the Council's agenda, rather than by 
scheduling a further dedicated meeting of the Council.  
59. The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that his delegation could agree with the 
Chairman's suggestion to discuss the date of the follo wing review at the next meeting of the Council.  
He stressed that, as a number of Members had not ye t replied to the questions asked, an opportunity 
should be provided for such replies to be given when the Council discussed the review at its following 
meeting. 
60. The Chairman  confirmed that such an opportunity w ould be provided and that Members were 
encouraged to submit further information at the next Council meeting. 
61. It was so agreed .  S/C/M/104 
 Page 9 
 
 
C. OTHER  BUSINESS 
62. No items of Other Business were raised.   
63. The meeting was adjourned . 
 
_______________